This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Death Penalty

No, I'm not. There is nothing retrospective about the Nuremberg trials.

Then you need to do a little more reading on the Nuremberg trials. The allies essentially tried the Nazis for international crimes that had yet to exist (genocide/war crimes)

Negligent homicide is a term....and it is murder. Homicide can also mean (and usually does mean) murder.

You're conflating several different issues. First of all, in this paragraph, I was referring to the Nazi crimes. Second, there was nothing negligent about either the Nazi killings or the Stalinist killings. Both were premeditated.

As far as weather or not it was illegal, international law states there must be a conviction for it to be legal. Did the Stalinists convict, in court, everyone they killed?

Again, this occurred before the standards against genocide were implemented. The Soviet Union was also not subject to any judicial enforcement or punishment as a result of the genocide, thereby undermining the definition of said law.

That is not a law according to the literal definition, and not all countries have ratified (like the US) or even signed the treaty. I suppose that means those who do not ratify and/or sign are not in violation of said treaty? And therefore, they are not guilty of state-sanctioned murder.

law
1 [law] Show IPA

noun
1.
the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2.
any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.

Re: Death Penalty

Originally Posted by mac

You're back tracking...I thought you came to terms with the Nazi thing. Of course it was illegal. You seem to have confused yourself on what I've said. I certainly did not say that the Nazi's committed no murders.

You go by the literal definition of terms when it suits your argument, and then ignore literalism when it doesn't suit your argument. You adhere to international standards and protocols when it suits your argument, and then ignore them when it doesn't suit your argument. Your logic is inconsistent.

Re: Death Penalty

Then you need to do a little more reading on the Nuremberg trials. The allies essentially tried the Nazis for international crimes that had yet to exist (genocide/war crimes)

That's not what I mean. The trials happened, the Nazi's were deemed guilty of war crimes. That's a fact, that's what happened. What they did to do that is a different matter.

You're conflating several different issues. First of all, in this paragraph, I was referring to the Nazi crimes. Second, there was nothing negligent about either the Nazi killings or the Stalinist killings. Both were premeditated.

You are conflating, I'm afraid, not I. You are making the connection between the issues, I am not. I did not say the Nazi's were guilty of negligent homicide. I said the Stalinists were.

Again, this occurred before the standards against genocide were implemented. The Soviet Union was also not subject to any judicial enforcement or punishment as a result of the genocide, thereby undermining the definition of said law.

Then take it up with the Nuremberg judges if you feel what happened to the Nazi's was unjust.

That is not a law according to the literal definition, and not all countries have ratified (like the US) or even signed the treaty. I suppose that means those who do not ratify and/or sign are not in violation of said treaty? And therefore, they are not guilty of state-sanctioned murder.

law
1 [law] Show IPA

noun
1.
the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2.
any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.

Re: Death Penalty

Originally Posted by Mensch

You go by the literal definition of terms when it suits your argument, and then ignore literalism when it doesn't suit your argument. You adhere to international standards and protocols when it suits your argument, and then ignore them when it doesn't suit your argument. Your logic is inconsistent.

Far from it. I said all along that the Nazi's were guilty of war crimes and murder. It's you that has been trying, and failing, to use the Nazi's to somehow justify your incorrect use of the word murder.

The simple fact of the matter is that murder is an illegal killing and the death penalty is not made illegal by either US or international law, regardless of what happened in WWII or for any other reason. You can throw up as much smoke as you like, but you'd do better talking about how the death penalty is wrong instead of making false claims about it's legality or by falsely calling it murder.

Re: Death Penalty

Originally Posted by mac

Far from it. I said all along that the Nazi's were guilty of war crimes and murder. It's you that has been trying, and failing, to use the Nazi's to somehow justify your incorrect use of the word murder.

The simple fact of the matter is that murder is an illegal killing and the death penalty is not made illegal by either US or international law, regardless of what happened in WWII or for any other reason. You can throw up as much smoke as you like, but you'd do better talking about how the death penalty is wrong instead of making false claims about it's legality or by falsely calling it murder.

hmmmm.... I have stayed out of this Nazi conversation because my WWII knowledge is limited, but... I do not like ot when people use the term "war crimes" or the fact that the notion exists. It seems that it is war, people are killing people, destroying infrastructure etc... but there are "rules" to it? Having "rules" makes it a game to me and war should not be like a game. Either do it or don't. I know this may sound callous but it is what I think.

When governments go after their own citizens like in Syria, it is not war but they are being accused of war crimes, what they are doing is tyranny, not "civil" war, which is an oxymoron and not war crimes.

"You know, when they came and took away my fourth amendment I kept my yap shut, what the hell, I really didn’t have anything to hide anyway. When they grabbed up my second amendment I sat still and bit my tongue because, truth be told, I’m allergic to guns. But here we are, you with your cold hard fingers wrapped around the neck of my first amendment and I’ve got to shout as loud as I can, because if I don’t, before you know it, you won’t let me say nothing at all" --Randolph J. Dworkin

Re: Death Penalty

That's not what I mean. The trials happened, the Nazi's were deemed guilty of war crimes. That's a fact, that's what happened. What they did to do that is a different matter.

This doesn't change the fact that the punishment was served retroactively for a crime that, at that time, was not illegal.

You are conflating, I'm afraid, not I. You are making the connection between the issues, I am not. I did not say the Nazi's were guilty of negligent homicide. I said the Stalinists were.

That would mean Joseph Stalin and his followers did not mean to starve the several million Ukrainians who were robbed of their livelihood.

Then take it up with the Nuremberg judges if you feel what happened to the Nazi's was unjust.

That is bull****. You know damn well I'm playing devil's advocate in order to demonstrate the weakness of your argument. I DO consider the Nazi killings murder, despite the fact that it was supposedly legal at the time. I also consider the Soviet killings murder, despite the fact that it was supposedly legal at the time and no judgement or punishment was ever rendered for that crime in a judicial setting (which is key to the definition of law).

It is a treaty, which we signed, it is law.

We signed, but we did not ratify. What does that mean? Saudi Arabia did not sign nor did they ratify the treaty. So, I guess that means when the Saudi government beheads adulterers and homosexuals, it is not murder (according to your logic).

In every one of these convenants that we did sign, we also made reservations. Can you tell me, by what logic, am I allowed to make reservations regarding laws in this country? If it is unfathomable to hold reservations in regard to homicide laws, why would it be fathomable to hold them in regard to international laws?

And finally, according to the literal definition (which you again ignored), the said treaty is not, in fact, a law.

Re: Death Penalty

Originally Posted by mac

Far from it. I said all along that the Nazi's were guilty of war crimes and murder. It's you that has been trying, and failing, to use the Nazi's to somehow justify your incorrect use of the word murder.

Wrong. I'm playing devil's advocate in order to prove your argument false. The Nazis did murder, but so did the Stalinists. Your logic would imply otherwise. Or, at the very least, would imply that the Saudi Arabian government NEVER murdered its citizens.

The simple fact of the matter is that murder is an illegal killing and the death penalty is not made illegal by either US or international law,

If it is not made illegal by any law anywhere, then the death penalty can be used to kill innocent people. PERIOD. The legal framework under which a killing is carried out does not solely dictate when a murder takes place.

Re: Death Penalty

Originally Posted by taxigirl

hmmmm.... I have stayed out of this Nazi conversation because my WWII knowledge is limited, but... I do not like ot when people use the term "war crimes" or the fact that the notion exists. It seems that it is war, people are killing people, destroying infrastructure etc... but there are "rules" to it? Having "rules" makes it a game to me and war should not be like a game. Either do it or don't. I know this may sound callous but it is what I think.

Yes, there are rules...under international law.

When governments go after their own citizens like in Syria, it is not war but they are being accused of war crimes, what they are doing is tyranny, not "civil" war, which is an oxymoron and not war crimes.

Syria is practically in a Civil war. The government can commit war crimes during a civil war.